It would be life, in the same way that there are single-cell life forms on earth.
It may not be sentient life.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Ya, so if a single cell is found on another planet it wouldn't REALLY be life then would it?

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

It would be life.

It would NOT be human life.

Although that would depend on the single cell you are talking about. If the single cell cannot perform all the functions of life then it will die, so it won't be alive. There are plenty single cell organisms out there. They are not human though.

Human life is a whole other ball game.
____________Reality Internet Personality

Ya, so if a single cell is found on another planet it wouldn't REALLY be life then would it?

We are talking human life, or did you commit murder today when you ate lunch?

ID's constant subject shifting has me convinced he is a hypocrite. He damn well knows a zygote isn't human life but can't admit it to anyone else because that would be an admission his belief system is riddled with errors.

Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.

That is some quick backtracking. That or a totally inept attempt to write a law. I pity the people in her district. Recall isn't going to be fast enough.

Given that it is possible to collect a viable DNA sample while the foetus is only a few weeks (might be days?) old, such paternity proof testing could be performed without going to term.
(In the case of rape I would add an ongoing "maternal medical costs" levy on the father - based on the "normal medical costs" of bringing up a child to the age of say 16...)
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Stupid people, i.e. morons, are much easier to trick into doing your secret agenda and they are very beholden to you for financing their campaign. Citizens United being a big help there as well. Yes, the electorate is that gullible, and that is who our future is. For more someone should create an idiot politicians and how they get elected thread so as not to drag this thread OT.

Speaking as a poster, there should be no debate. SCOTUS decided this one long ago. The end?

Speaking as a moderator this thread has already caused emotions to run high and will be locked for 24 hours.

Factually, the Supreme Court did no such thing. Most Americans are entirely ignorant of what R v Wade actually is. If R v Wade were repealed tomorrow abortions would NOT be outlawed in the USA. It would merely allow the matter to revert to the individual states.

Furthermore, the abortion argument is typically represented from both points of view from irrational beginnings. Neither side that is portrayed in the public arena tend to debate 'personhood'; this is a point I made several years ago in a similar debate here started by ES99 when she was operating under a pseudonym.

To assert in the positive:

1. A zygote is human tissue. It isn't parsley or fungi, etc.

2. Human tissue is not necessarily a person. Cells in your body are not people.

3. The perameters of what is required to be judged human must be established before the argument can proceed.

4. The argument of whether or not and if said human person has established rights must be debated based on the above numbers 2 and 3.

5. A rights theory should be established to either confirm or negate any supposed rights to pregnant person's 'rights'.

(there are various and ubiquitous arguments for these by philosophers and ethicists extant)

My points above are meant to realize the debate to a level that is more rational than what is most emotionally charged (and often mystically) motivated by both sides. If we refuse to use reason and facts then emotionalism sets the tone which yields zero fruit.

____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

To get back to the original question asked in the title of the thread. The answer is .... because it is a very emotional issue and because it is an emotional issue, the gulf between the "Pro" and "Anti" camps is almost irreconcilable and open, honest debate on the matter is virtually impossible

May I mention that not all women are Pro Choice, and not all men are in the "Pro Life" camp, so this is much more than a "gender issue". It isn't even necessarily a religious issue. Both sides have their fair share of atheists and agnostics

It isn't even a new debate, as abortion was probably the first method of birth control available to humans, this debate is very old indeed. Even before surgical abortions were developed, most hunter gatherer tribes knew of certain plants that could be taken to abort the foetus and the effect of a kick or punch to the woman's stomach (quite often at the woman's request).

I can see points from both sides. While I agree there are many cases where abortion is justifiable such as rape, deformities in the foetus, the woman being x-rayed in early pregnancy and so on. I am cool on the idea of abortion being used simply as a method of birth control, particularly when there are so many other options available though I have no problem with the "morning after" pill.

In the end though, I believe it is the choice of the woman concerned. There are very few women who would have an abortion without giving it serious forethought and getting advice from others. But in the end, if she feels she is strong enough to deal with the situation and decides to go through with it, it's her choice and her's alone.

To get back to the original question asked in the title of the thread. The answer is .... because it is a very emotional issue and because it is an emotional issue, the gulf between the "Pro" and "Anti" camps is almost irreconcilable and open, honest debate on the matter is virtually impossible

May I mention that not all women are Pro Choice, and not all men are in the "Pro Life" camp, so this is much more than a "gender issue". It isn't even necessarily a religious issue. Both sides have their fair share of atheists and agnostics

It isn't even a new debate, as abortion was probably the first method of birth control available to humans, this debate is very old indeed. Even before surgical abortions were developed, most hunter gatherer tribes knew of certain plants that could be taken to abort the foetus and the effect of a kick or punch to the woman's stomach (quite often at the woman's request).

I can see points from both sides. While I agree there are many cases where abortion is justifiable such as rape, deformities in the foetus, the woman being x-rayed in early pregnancy and so on. I am cool on the idea of abortion being used simply as a method of birth control, particularly when there are so many other options available though I have no problem with the "morning after" pill.

In the end though, I believe it is the choice of the woman concerned. There are very few women who would have an abortion without giving it serious forethought and getting advice from others. But in the end, if she feels she is strong enough to deal with the situation and decides to go through with it, it's her choice and her's alone.

T.A.

I think a lot of "pro-lifers" confuse being pro-choice with pro-abortion. All we insist on is that people have the choice. If they have come to a situation where the alternatives are worse for them than having an abortion then they should have that choice.

It seems quite simple to me. No one has an abortion for pleasure. No one has an abortion on a whim. It is a difficult decision that only the mother and her doctor are in a position to decide. No one else needs be involved as they aren't the one's that have to deal with the consequences.
____________Reality Internet Personality

The only input that men should have to the abortion issue are ancillary.
Men can provide financial and emotional support, but it ends there.
The spiritual and physical consequences of whether an abortion is warranted can only be borne by the bearer.

Apparently there is a word for it when men presume to tell women what is best for them: